Senate Votes to Extend Patriot Act

The Senate, on a voice vote, today extended the expiring Patriot Act provisions:

One provision authorizes court-approved roving wiretaps that permit surveillance on multiple phones. A second allows court-approved seizure of records and property in antiterrorism operations. A third permits surveillance against a noncitizen suspected of engaging in terrorism who may not be part of a recognized terrorist group.

How's this for a compromise?

In agreeing to pass the bill, Senate Democrats retreated from adding new privacy protections to the USA Patriot Act.

Having a majority in the Senate doesn't seem to mean much in the age of compromise. The bill now goes to the House, which undoubtedly will do the same.

< Rep. Jared Polis to Eric Holder: Stand By Your Word on Medical Marijuana | Thursday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I guess there is no (5.00 / 0) (#1)
    by JamesTX on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 01:29:27 AM EST
    problem with filibusters and reconciliation and such. This is salt in the wound. A direct spit in the face. A blatant insult. This is evil. Did they have to do this right now? Have they so completely abandoned the interests of the people who elected them that they can't even put up a pretense of representing their base? I think I am to the point that I am certain there is only one solution. It rarely happens, but we need to clean out the barn.

    Wait a second...now we have Senate (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Anne on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 06:52:43 AM EST
    Democrats giving up things as the price for their votes?  Isn't that completely a$$-backwards?  "Okay, if you want us to vote for this, we're going to have to insist that we give up a key element that improves the bill - or else!"

    And a voice vote - really?  The most cowardly way to vote for anything, since there's no record of each individual's vote; I'm guessing that was a Democratic procedural decision, too.  

    Not sure how much more of this I can take.

    The Dem approach to (none / 0) (#3)
    by JamesTX on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 09:06:34 AM EST
    negotiation: I'll give you everything I have, but not a penny less. That's my final offer! I would like to buy a used car from a Dem Senator right now.

    You guys need more prosecutors like the Dems! In fact, after we clean out the barn, maybe you can help them to get jobs based on their negotiation records. "I'll drop that capital murder charge to a misdemeanor  -- but not 2nd degree murder! NO WAY! And, absolutely no prison time -- don't even think about it! That's my final offer!" </snark>


    Cowards... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by desertswine on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 09:31:50 AM EST

    Benjamin Franklin saw us clearly. (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by lentinel on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 10:18:16 AM EST
    During his brief tenure in the Senate, now president Obama voted for the renewal of this abomination. It is one of the many reasons I could not support his candidacy.
    It is no surprise that this unpatriotic patriot act is being renewed once again.
    We have become accustomed to living in fear.

    Benjamin Franklin was talking directly to us when he said,

    They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.

    We continue to give up our freedoms - and we have neither liberty nor security.

    For just a sec. I thought you wrote (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 12:18:44 PM EST
    Ben Franklin's tenure in the Senate was brief.

    Voice vote required unanimous consent. (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 10:45:09 AM EST
    Senator Feingold, I knew Blutarsky, and you're no Blutarsky.

    Still going to Russ' bday party fundraiser (none / 0) (#11)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 12:17:29 PM EST
    a week from Sunday, but this will knock my donation down to two cents.

    Was Feingold present when voice vote taken? (none / 0) (#14)
    by jawbone on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 05:42:21 PM EST
    Just wondering.

    He NEVER misses a vote. (none / 0) (#15)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 06:20:58 PM EST
    Underwear Bomber wins! (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 10:45:38 AM EST

    Cynic (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 10:57:26 AM EST
    I wonder if it has more to due with all the money  that can be dished out to private contractors than it has to do with security. A lot of money can be swept under the rug in the name of security and national defense.

    Ain't that the truth... (none / 0) (#9)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 10:59:37 AM EST
    follow the money and you'll always get your answers.

    Same with doomsday threats of economic destruction...its a great way to make a boatload of money disappear.


    Hmmm...why (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by DancingOpossum on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 11:53:58 AM EST
    It's almost like the Democrats didn't actually want those privacy protections, isn't it? But no, that couldn't be. Never, never.

    The myth of Democrats' incompetence will get you in trouble. It will distract you from reality: They are getting exactly what they want. Trouble is, it's diametrically opposed to what we (the people they "represent") want.

    Excerpt from Glenn Greenwald: (none / 0) (#13)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 12:54:18 PM EST
    "I would have preferred to add oversight and judicial review improvements to any extension of expiring provisions in the USA Patriot Act," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. "But I understand some Republican senators objected."


    Some Republican senators objected (none / 0) (#16)
    by Lora on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 06:41:35 PM EST
    Republican attack machine against anyone supposedly soft on terror??